Sometimes you have friends in a relationship. You love each of them dearly as individuals and think they're amazing people. When they talk to you about their troubles, you do everything you can to support them, to keep them together, because if you love them both so much doesn't it make sense they should love each other? But little by little you realize, at heart, they aren't meant to be together - not because there's anything wrong with either of them, but they just don't have personalities that mesh in a comfortable way. They don't make each other happy. Although it's sad to see them split, when they do, you're surprisingly relieved, and excited to see where their lives take them next.

It's easy to try to make one party "right" and another party "wrong" when a breakup happens, but it often isn't that simple. Or perhaps it's even more simple than that - not everyone belongs in a relationship together. It doesn't mean they're not wonderful people.

And that's true of both Edgar Wright and Marvel. One of them isn't a person, but I think you get what I mean.

I find it kind of weird that they would apparently have such an issue with what Wright apparently wanted to do after they apprently wanted James Gunn to actually go farther with GotG. I read an interview the other day with Gunn, where he said that he originally wrote a more straight forward version, but Feige and Marvel told him to "make it more James Gunn". I have to wonder why "James Gunn" is OK, but apparently "Edgar Wright" is not.

Click to expand...

To me it sounds like the same thing, whether they want "less Wright" or "more Gunn" Marvel knows what they're looking for and are steering the filmmakers toward that. (Assuming "less Wright" is even close to correct here)

It's too bad that this project has been so long in gestation. I think if Wright had gotten it moving sooner we might not be in this boat.

GotG is not a risk.. even though it might seem the riskiest of what Marvel is doing, but I guarantee you that even if it flops, the accountants there can put them all in the black with a little number crunching.

Click to expand...

There is only so much accountants can do. The flop that was John Carter was a BIG punch in the gut for the studio. For the bottom line. Accountants, regardless of what the story is, don't just wave magic wands and make failure disappear.

They actually make success disappear. Never get points on net. Always gross.

I think I see what you're saying. They went into GotG expecting something in James Gunn's style, but they didn't get that, and they asked him to change it and he did. Now they went into Ant-Man with expecting one thing, but Wright gave them something else, and unlike Gunn, Wright didn't want to change what he was doing.

I find it kind of weird that they would apparently have such an issue with what Wright apparently wanted to do after they apprently wanted James Gunn to actually go farther with GotG. I read an interview the other day with Gunn, where he said that he originally wrote a more straight forward version, but Feige and Marvel told him to "make it more James Gunn".

Click to expand...

Well, Feige was reportedly the one who fought for Wright's version of things. It was the Disney higher-ups who didn't like what Wright and Cornish were doing. Chances are, the Marvel folks never changed their minds about Wright's vision for Ant-Man, but they're no longer the ones calling the shots since they've been bought by Disney.

I keep forgetting about Disney in there. I know the parent company can be a pain in these kind of things even if they're tying to be hands off for the most part. Eventually their ways kind of seeps in regardless.

Yeah, Marvel doesn't previously have a reputation for corporate thinking. The movies often ended up homogenized, but this was something else. It being Disney makes quite a bit of sense. You would think that Marvel had earned some flexibility here (much like Pixar had earned flexibility), so it's a shame that they didn't get it here.

I would love to read what Edgar Wright's version was compared to what the final one would be.

I wouldn't be surprised if the massive success of the last couple of MCU movies was the reason for this. Disney used to be content to let Marvel do their thing and produce one mid-range blockbuster after another, but now that they're routinely making those >600 million-dollar hits, they're scared of breaking that winning streak and therefore less willing to take risks. (ignoring that said success mainly came from taking those exact risks in the first place)

^It's more about the assembly-line philosophy of how these films are being made, combined with the fact that the creative decisions are being handed down from the top. It's an awful trend. We wouldn't have A New Hope, Back to the Future, or Raiders of the Lost Ark turn out to be timeless films if they were made with the same methodology.

^It's more about the assembly-line philosophy of how these films are being made, combined with the fact that the creative decisions are being handed down from the top. It's an awful trend. We wouldn't have A New Hope, Back to the Future, or Raiders of the Lost Ark turn out to be timeless films if they were made with the same methodology.

Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. Each of those films you mention was the first in it's series. Not only that each film wasn't originally made with a sequel in mind (with perhaps the exception of Star Wars, but even then Lucas wasn't thinking that far ahead).

If you want a more accurate comparison, you have to compare the MCU to the James Bond films. Both are producer controlled series that critics often describe as "assembly line" products just as you do.

Considering these movies are supposed to all be related and similar in feel, allowing directors to do whatever they want is, honestly, a bad thing. Especially since nearly every single one of them would want to make it their movie, with their vision, and more likely than not wanting to "reimagine" it so that it's "hip and edgy."

Personally, I'd much rather have control in the writer's hands than anyone's (seeing as how a movie is, really, their vision coming to life), though I can see why the producers need to keep things in line for something like the MCU.

Considering these movies are supposed to all be related and similar in feel, allowing directors to do whatever they want is, honestly, a bad thing. Especially since nearly every single one of them would want to make it their movie, with their vision, and more likely than not wanting to "reimagine" it so that it's "hip and edgy."

Considering these movies are supposed to all be related and similar in feel, allowing directors to do whatever they want is, honestly, a bad thing. Especially since nearly every single one of them would want to make it their movie, with their vision, and more likely than not wanting to "reimagine" it so that it's "hip and edgy."

Click to expand...

I have a feeling that this is why Wright was fired. He had vision but it didn't fit with the MCU. In that case what Disney did was appropriate.

Considering these movies are supposed to all be related and similar in feel, allowing directors to do whatever they want is, honestly, a bad thing. Especially since nearly every single one of them would want to make it their movie, with their vision, and more likely than not wanting to "reimagine" it so that it's "hip and edgy."

Click to expand...

I have a feeling that this is why Wright was fired. He had vision but it didn't fit with the MCU. In that case what Disney did was appropriate.

Click to expand...

Maybe appropriate.. if you like hake having your movies made by suits rather than visionaries